| Subject: I think the gloves have to come off |
Author:
krz
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/18/04 9:37:08pm
In reply to:
tjm
's message, "exposed" on 10/18/04 5:55:06pm
pjk - this is difficult for me, and I hope you read the rest from that premise. i'm not part of the collective memory that forged this alliance (geo, pjk, tzz and the muhs experience - not to mention the dsha girls i regularly meet -- an aside, geo is 'sweet', tzz is 'gorgeous', an pjk is 'mysterious' - at least from a soccer mom who will remain anonymous to all but geo). i am, however, blessed to be enriched by your presence in my life, and view the voy as a way for a group with different life experiences to share. it is the ideal (hopefully) of civil discourse.
A completely out of context quote from a prior debate you and I started regarding the teaching of evolution in the school curriculum:
(krz)
I'm quite
>comfortable trusting the ability of the American
>people to sort out the argument. (based on a statement that I believed the best scenario was teaching both perspectives - evolution and creationism)
(pjk)
Not me. Something like 70% of Republicans think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Huge numbers of Americans believe we found WMDs there.
who do you trust? what information meets your sniff test? for that matter what is your sniff test?
without some understanding that some information from some people needs to be trusted, then how can we move forward in a civil discourse? you've challenged me on my use of the 911 commission report as basis for some decision making. you've challenged tjm/tzz on his use of those you consider right wing propagandists as a basis for some of his decision making. yet although you've offered contrasting opinion, your sources are as biased as the ones you critique me of using. i don't trust the government implicitly, however, as i teach my students how to examine quality of evidence - sometimes it's the best we have to work with.
this disagreement among friends is suggestive of a larger problem with our national discourse. if the argument is always based on 'distrustful data' then how do we ever move forward? the discourse inevitably ends up being the intellectual equivalent of 'so are you but what am i'.
how can any nation move forward when we can't agree to have civil discussions on differing points of interest? it's no secret i'm left of tzz. yet, because i respect him, his opinion, and his work - i work to understand why he reads an issue (the war, social policy, economics) from a different lens. this approach buys me both the opportunity to reflect on why i hold the beliefs i hold, and to enrich my perspective so that i can clearly view the weaknesses in my arguments. what a gift. i egotistically assume tzz does the same.
your approach seems to be to dismiss those who disagree with your already formed opinion - and in doing so to dismiss the individual. this is neither civil nor reflective - and in the end you lose the richness of debate.
i challenge you pjk - to define what you consider the criterion of good evidence - so that we can at least hold discussions that originate from commonly held assumptions.
i ask you tzz, don't give up the voy. please know that i appreciate, value, and look forward to our contact on a regular basis. these discussions make me a better person - and i realize that without the voy incentive we all communitcate less.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 